GONZALO B. MENDOZA, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME “GONZALO B. MENDOZA & SONS”, AND CONRADO G. GENILO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS FOR PAN…

Petition for certiorari, with preliminary injunction, to
annul and set aside the order of the respondent Judge issued on November 2, 1966 in Civil Case No.
C-878 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Caloocan City,
entitled:  “Restituto
H. Samson, Jr., etc., petitioner, versus Conrado
G. Genilo, etc., et al., respondents,” for
having been issued without jurisdiction.

It is not disputed that on August 5, 1966, the herein petitioner,
Conrado G. Genilo, in his
capacity as Division Superintendent of Schools for Pangasinan,
issued a notice to contractors, requesting submission of sealed proposals for
furnishing and delivering school desks, teacher’s tables, teacher’s aparadors, and teacher’s chairs.  The petitioner Gonzalo B. Mendoza and the
private respondent Restituto H. Samson, Jr. submitted
their respective bids.  The bid of
Gonzalo B. Mendoza being lower, the contract was awarded to him.^[1]
Immediately thereafter, Gonzalo B. Mendoza made deliveries of the equipment
called for, such that by the end of October, 1966, the delivery of the school
equipment was almost complete.^[2]

However, on November 2,
1966, Restituto H. Samson, Jr. filed a
petition for injunction with preliminary writ of injunction against Conrado G. Genilo and Gonzalo B.
Mendoza with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Caloocan City,
docketed therein as Civil Case No. C-878, to restrain Gonzalo B. Mendoza from effecting further delivery of
school equipment to the Pangasinan Division of
Schools, and Conrado G. Genilo,
as Division Superintendent of Schools for Pangasinan,
from paying for said items from the funds in his custody, claiming that the
bidding had all the earmarks of a spurious public bidding brazenly concocted
and conceived by the therein respondents to prejudice the government.^[3] Upon the filing of a bond in the amount of P2,000.00, the respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance issued, ex parte, a writ of preliminary injunction, restraining Gonzalo B. Mendoza from
effecting deliveries of school equipment to the Division of Schools of Pangasinan; and Conrado G. Genilo, as Division Superintendent of Schools for Pangasinan, from paying for said items from the funds in
his custody.^[4]

The respondents therein
filed an urgent ex parte motion to lift the restraining order for the
reason, among others, that the Court has no jurisdiction to issue the
restraining order for acts which are committed or about to be committed outside
its territorial jurisdiction,^[5] but the respondent Judge denied the motion.^[6] Whereupon the respondents therein filed the
instant petition to quash the aforementioned restraining order.  As prayed for, the Court issued a writ of
preliminary injunction, restraining the respondent Judge from enforcing or in
any way effecting the restraining order issued in Civil Case No. C-878.^[7]

Answering the petition,
the respondents manifested, among others:

“(3)  That the petitioners’ petition being
predicated on the lack of jurisdiction of the respondent judge of Caloocan City to issue a writ of preliminary injunction or
restraining order, in Civil Case No. C-878 and the respondent Restituto H. Samson, Jr., having filed a motion to dismiss
said Civil Case No. 878, before a responsive pleading is filed, wherein he
intimated that he would file the same case in the court of proper jurisdiction,
a copy of which motion is herein attached as Annex ‘A’ of this answer and made
an integral part hereof, the question therefore before the Honorable Court
becomes moot and academic;”

and
prayed that the petition be dismissed.^[8]

On December
14, 1966, the
petitioner filed a Reply alleging that as a consequence of the reckless and
imprudent act on the part of respondent Samson in filing Civil Case No. C-878
before the court presided by respondent Judge who has no jurisdiction as
admitted by the former, the petitioners have suffered actual damages and
incurred expenses of litigation including attorney’s fees and costs, and
praying that the respondent Restituto H. Samson, Jr.
be ordered to pay the petitioners the amounts of P5,000.00 as exemplary and
actual damages; P5,000.00, as and for attorney’s fees; and treble costs.^[9]

On January 4, 1967, the private respondent Restituto
H. Samson, Jr. filed a rejoinder to the petitioners’ Reply stating that the
petitioners’ claim for damages contained in their Reply has no basis in law and
in fact; and that the same question of damages arising from the filing of Civil
Case No. C-878 is at issue in an injunction case, Special Civil Action No.
14589 of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan,
entitled:  “Restituto
H. Samson, Jr., etc., petitioner, versus Conrado G. Genilo, etc., et al., respondents.^[10]

On January 17, 1967,
the Court granted the petitioners’ motion to withdraw the cash bond deposited
for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction.^[11]

The instant petition was filed to quash the writ of preliminary
injunction issued on November 2, 1966
in Civil Case No. C-878 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal,
Caloocan City, which restrained Gonzalo B. Mendoza of
Dagupan City from delivering school equipment to the
Division of Schools of Pangasinan, and the Division
Superintendent of Schools for Pangasinan from paying
for said items from the funds under his custody.  The acts sought to be restrained are
committed or about to be committed in Pangasinan.  It is already a settled rule that the
jurisdiction or authority of courts of first instance to control or restrain
acts by means of the writ of injunction is limited to acts which are committed
or about to be committed within the territorial boundaries of their respective
provinces and districts.^[12]
The respondent Judge, therefore, had no jurisdiction in Civil Case No. C-878 to
restrain the herein petitioners from performing the acts complained of.  Considering however, that the respondent Restituto H. Samson, Jr., the plaintiff therein, had
already sought the dismissal of the said case and the consequent quashal of the writ of preliminary injunction issued, the
instant petition is now moot and academic.

The application for damages contained in the petitioners’ Reply
cannot be entertained.  It appears that a
bond had been filed in Civil Case No. C-878 for the issuance of the writ of
preliminary injunction.  The injunction
bond is intended as a security for damages in case it is finally decided that
the injunction ought not to have been granted. 
It is designed to cover all damages which the party enjoined can
possibly suffer.  Its principal purpose
is to protect the enjoined party against loss or damage by reason of the
injunction.  And the Rules of Court has
outlined the procedure for the filing of a claim for damages against an
injunction bond.  Sec. 9, Rule 58 of the
Rules of Court provides:

“Sec. 9.  Judgment to
include damages against party and sureties. 
– Upon the trial the amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff,
or to the defendant, as the case may be, upon the bond of the other party,
shall be claimed, ascertained, and awarded under the same procedure as
prescribed in section 20 of Rule 57.”

Section 20 of Rule 57 reads, as follows:

“Sec. 20.  Claim for
damages on account of illegal attachment. 
– If the judgment on the action be in favor of the party against whom
attachment was issued, he may recover, upon the bond given or deposit made by
the attaching creditor, any damages resulting from the attachment.  Such damages may be awarded only upon application
and after proper hearing, and shall be included in the final judgment.  The application
must be filed before the trial or before appeal is perfected or before the
judgment becomes executory, with due notice to the
attaching creditor and his surety or sureties, setting forth the facts showing
his right to damages and the amount thereof.

If the judgment of the appellate court be favorable to the party
against whom the attachment was issued, he must claim damages sustained during
the pendency of the appeal by filing an application
with notice to the party in whose favor the attachment was issued or his surety
or sureties, before the judgment of the appellate court becomes executory.  The
appellate court may allow the application to be heard and decided by the trial
court.”

From the provisions of law
cited, it appears that whenever a bond is filed because of the issuance of a
preliminary injunction and damages are suffered as a result thereof, the claim
for damages must be presented in the principal action and judgment therefor should be included in the final judgment of the
case.  The application for such damages
should be filed “before the trial or before appeal is perfected or before the
judgment becomes executory, with due notice to the
(plaintiff) and his surety or sureties, setting forth the facts showing the
right to damages and the amount thereof.”

Moreover, it appears that
the private respondent, Restituto H. Samson, Jr., has
filed another case against the herein petitioners with the Court of First
Instance of Pangasinan (Special Civil Act No. 14589) and the herein petitioners have
specifically asked therein for damages arising from the issuance of a
writ of preliminary injunction in Civil Case No. C-878 of the Court of First
Instance of Rizal, Caloocan City
Branch.^[13]

WHEREFORE, the petition should be, as it is hereby
DISMISSED.  The writ of preliminary
injunction heretofore issued is hereby lifted.  With costs against the respondent Restituto
H. Samson, Jr.

Barredo, (Chairman), Santos,
and Abad
Santos, JJ., concur.

Antonio and Aquino, JJ., in the result.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 10.

^[2]
Par. 3 of Petition, Rollo, p. 3.

^[3]
Rollo, p. 13.

^[4]
Id., p. 23.

^[5]
Id., p. 24.

^[6]
Id., p. 5; par. 9 of Petition.

^[7]
Id., p. 30.

^[8]
Id., p. 31.

^[9]
Id., p. 37.

^[10]
Id., p. 44.

^[11]
Id., p. 52.

^[12]
Alhambra Cigar & Cigarette Mfg. Co. vs. The National Administrator
of Regional Office No. 2, L-20491, Aug. 31, 1965 & cases cited therein, 14
SCRA 1019; De la Cruz vs. Gabor, L-30774, Oct.
31, 1969 & cases cited therein, 30 SCRA 325.

^[13]
Rollo, p. 46.